Setting aside standing and even setting aside any effect on this election, does it not matter for future elections that it be clear that the legislature can't be bypassed in these matters?

> Setting aside standing and even setting aside any effect on this election, does it not matter for future elections that it be clear that the legislature can’t be bypassed in these matters?

No, it would actually be terribly disruptive if the legislature could not subject its regulation of federal elections to the judicial and executive power in the same way as other state laws (and, particularly, laws governing the administration of simultaneously and on-the-same-ballot state elections) are.

The concern here was entirely feigned, hypocritical by the states involved in complaints, and substanceless and purely based on partisan advantage.

The legislature can clearly be bypassed by the courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_v._Virginia_State_Board...

So, it’s a much more specific question you’re asking. It also had zero impact on this election, but that’s largely irrelevant to the question.

I don't think that case is an example of the legislature being bypassed. That is an example of the legislature taking an unconstitutional action.

The question in the Texas lawsuit doesn't challenge the actions of the legislature, it challenges the actions of the other officials.

That’s a slightly different argument, if you accept that the courts are final arbiters then clearly they get to determine what’s allowed not the legislature.

It’s often argued by public officials that exceptions are allowed in extreme situations, though what those are is of course up to the courts. Perhaps best summed up as "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suic... Which of course isn’t a blank check to do anything for any reason, but it is considered by the court system in various cases. There are many examples of this argument being considered acceptable, and perhaps more frequent examples of it being rejected.

As such simply saying the legislature was bypassed on it’s own is not considered a sufficient legal argument.

> As such simply saying the legislature was bypassed on it’s own is not considered a sufficient legal argument.

Well, the interesting point of law here is that the Constitution specifically delegates the authority to the legislature. So in this particular case it may indeed be as straightforward as saying that the legislature was bypassed and didn't authorize the changes. At least that is my understanding of the case so far.

That’s a common thread across other instances of this legal argument and again on it’s own is considered insufficient.

It all rolls back to article III section 2 The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

The legislature is often assumed to have a great deal of power, but it was intended to be relatively weak just like the other two branches of government.